Michael Bresciani
The twenty first century - - enter at your own risk
By Michael Bresciani
After reading the reviews, publishing some on our website and finally taking the time to listen to every word and nuance of the debate between creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye the science guy. The idea of rating one against the other to determine who won the debate fell away like snow in July. After hearing only one single answer from Bill Nye and Ken Ham's follow-up reply the abject spiritual poverty of modern man became perfectly evident – it was blaring.
Nye offered one of the worst explanations of entropy, sometimes called the second law of thermodynamics, ever heard. It was as if he was espousing the idea that the law, which states that everything in the universe is decaying, could be overcome simply by the warm glow of the sun.
We almost expected someone, anyone, to stop the debate long enough to remind Nye that the sun is also subject to the second law, it too is slowly burning up and will someday be gone altogether. But Nye's mesmerizeation with science magic could not be de-lustered.
Following the flowery notion that simple sunshine could overcome entropy and produce complexity, including inter species evolution, Nye went on to praise technology. He threw emails, handheld gadgets, cell phones and cameras into the pot and after marveling at them all as great advances for the world, he went on to make his final bid at proving the worthiness of science to be admired, adored and yes, perhaps even worshipped.
It was another version of, 'It's not the destination that counts – but it's the journey that matters.' He repeated the phrase about science being all about the "joy of discovery" several times over as if it was both the cause and the justifiable end to all scientific pursuit. We almost expected him to say that we scientist actually do care about finally answering the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Nye's aura, halo and his momentary golden glowing naiveté was shattered like the switching off of a giant floodlight when Ham replied; "What good is all the joy of discovery when after that you are dead and your life is forgotten." In so many words, Ham went on to ask – what is the purpose of any discovery – if man is destined to annihilation and non-existence.
We saw two men, one proclaiming that discovering how everything is made is far more important that acknowledging who made it. The other man was saying that the fascination and the useful result of discovery are wonderful and indeed important, but second only to knowing who to thank.
What we saw in this debate was a question of the age of the planet being used as a summary argument against faith in God. All of God's revelation of himself throughout the ages is to be dismissed for a single question that scientists say is well – inexplicable under the microscope of empirical observation.
The Old Man and the Prophet – Conclusions that are Not Naïve
As an old man often found in the company of other old men and women it is impossible to agree with a philosophy that says playing around with how things are made takes precedence over why they were made. I submit that no man who approaches the fullness of the time allotted to him can escape seriously pondering this simple but profound proclamation. It is a piece of wisdom, a clarion call from the Living God to stop looking around and take a serious moment to look up. To wit:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3: 16)
As a man with a prophetic calling on my life I can add that whatever the debate between faith and science produces is not to be compared with what prophecy proclaims.
At the last trump the angel of the Lord declares not only the end of the rule of man over our beleaguered planet, scientist included. Oddly, during this sworn proclamation the angel refers the reader not just to God, but to the God of all creation.
"And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets." (Rev 10: 5-7)
In an article entitled, "Religion and Politics Don't Mix – A Modern Fairy Tale" comes an excerpt that begs to be expanded to include science and all debate about science versus faith. Indeed it isn't a matter of who can win this debate. After considering the broad expanse of the matter we refer to as eternity – there simply is no contest.
August 2009: "As truth loses its premium fewer Americans will notice that in the bare knuckles contest between religion and culture, religion will always lose. But in the contest between a political answer and prophetic utterance, politics will always lose. There is no battle between ideology and theology; there is no contest."
© Michael Bresciani
February 22, 2014
After reading the reviews, publishing some on our website and finally taking the time to listen to every word and nuance of the debate between creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye the science guy. The idea of rating one against the other to determine who won the debate fell away like snow in July. After hearing only one single answer from Bill Nye and Ken Ham's follow-up reply the abject spiritual poverty of modern man became perfectly evident – it was blaring.
Nye offered one of the worst explanations of entropy, sometimes called the second law of thermodynamics, ever heard. It was as if he was espousing the idea that the law, which states that everything in the universe is decaying, could be overcome simply by the warm glow of the sun.
We almost expected someone, anyone, to stop the debate long enough to remind Nye that the sun is also subject to the second law, it too is slowly burning up and will someday be gone altogether. But Nye's mesmerizeation with science magic could not be de-lustered.
Following the flowery notion that simple sunshine could overcome entropy and produce complexity, including inter species evolution, Nye went on to praise technology. He threw emails, handheld gadgets, cell phones and cameras into the pot and after marveling at them all as great advances for the world, he went on to make his final bid at proving the worthiness of science to be admired, adored and yes, perhaps even worshipped.
It was another version of, 'It's not the destination that counts – but it's the journey that matters.' He repeated the phrase about science being all about the "joy of discovery" several times over as if it was both the cause and the justifiable end to all scientific pursuit. We almost expected him to say that we scientist actually do care about finally answering the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
Nye's aura, halo and his momentary golden glowing naiveté was shattered like the switching off of a giant floodlight when Ham replied; "What good is all the joy of discovery when after that you are dead and your life is forgotten." In so many words, Ham went on to ask – what is the purpose of any discovery – if man is destined to annihilation and non-existence.
We saw two men, one proclaiming that discovering how everything is made is far more important that acknowledging who made it. The other man was saying that the fascination and the useful result of discovery are wonderful and indeed important, but second only to knowing who to thank.
What we saw in this debate was a question of the age of the planet being used as a summary argument against faith in God. All of God's revelation of himself throughout the ages is to be dismissed for a single question that scientists say is well – inexplicable under the microscope of empirical observation.
The Old Man and the Prophet – Conclusions that are Not Naïve
As an old man often found in the company of other old men and women it is impossible to agree with a philosophy that says playing around with how things are made takes precedence over why they were made. I submit that no man who approaches the fullness of the time allotted to him can escape seriously pondering this simple but profound proclamation. It is a piece of wisdom, a clarion call from the Living God to stop looking around and take a serious moment to look up. To wit:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3: 16)
As a man with a prophetic calling on my life I can add that whatever the debate between faith and science produces is not to be compared with what prophecy proclaims.
At the last trump the angel of the Lord declares not only the end of the rule of man over our beleaguered planet, scientist included. Oddly, during this sworn proclamation the angel refers the reader not just to God, but to the God of all creation.
"And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets." (Rev 10: 5-7)
In an article entitled, "Religion and Politics Don't Mix – A Modern Fairy Tale" comes an excerpt that begs to be expanded to include science and all debate about science versus faith. Indeed it isn't a matter of who can win this debate. After considering the broad expanse of the matter we refer to as eternity – there simply is no contest.
August 2009: "As truth loses its premium fewer Americans will notice that in the bare knuckles contest between religion and culture, religion will always lose. But in the contest between a political answer and prophetic utterance, politics will always lose. There is no battle between ideology and theology; there is no contest."
© Michael Bresciani
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
